On one side are the BELIEVERS, who faithfully believe in Mike's miraculous KO powers.

"Tyson was a damn freak of nature when focused and prime. He was a physical phenom… Watch his 80's fights, it was like the opponents were in slow motion. He had faster hands than Roy Jones Jr and was a damn heavyweight bomber, UNREAL."

(original quote)

On the other side there are the many doubters who claim that Mike Tyson is overrated:

"Tyson was the product of careful matchmaking and a great hype machine; a man who was too reliant on intimidation for his success… He never fought Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield in his prime or even a comebacking George Foreman. That tells you something… Tyson was unproven in his prime."

(original quote)

or

"Look at the cab drivers and crack wh*res Tyson was knocking out to get a title shot… I mean what big name did he beat? A 38 year old Larry Holmes!?? A small and rusty Michael Spinks?! If people are gonna say Rocky Marciano knocked out a past-it Joe Louis…take a long hard look at "devastating" Tyson's early opponents."

(original quote)

or

"Tyson was a meteor that blazed through boxing, but his legend grows exponentially as the years go on. In a few years people will be talking about how Mike Tyson killed a bear with his bare hands."

(original quote)

or

"People say he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because he never won a big super match with a big fighter of his era. The truth of the matter is there wasn't too much around in his era at the time when he was in his prime"

Emanuel Steward, Hall of Fame trainer

Thus if someone starts a topic on a boxing forum "Would Mike Tyson win against ((insert any opponent))?" then you immediately get these 2 types of responses:

"Mike Tyson would go through ((opponent)) within 1 round"

and "Mike Tyson is the most overrated boxer in history. Whom has he beaten?"

I could collect a nice sum of money would I get 1 dollar every time someone mentions the above to statements.

The Facts about Mike Tyson

There is no greater denial of a boxer's ACTUAL RECORD than by Mike Tyson fans (not all fans of course ) and by Muhammad Ali fans (but Ali's fans are a different story).

Sometimes you have the feeling one is not discussing "Iron Mike" but "Mythical Mike"

"Against Mike Tyson BOTH KLITS would be eating canvas"

"Wladimir Klitschko vs Mike Tyson in Tyson's prime, Klitschko would had fallen like the twin towers but worse"

(original quotes)

But, wait a sec, do these boxing fans actually know that Mike Tyson LOST sometimes?

That Tyson won by DECISION and not by KO sometimes?

Because if you are one of the guys who claims "Tyson would KO a Klitschko, no doubt about it" then I have to pop the bubble by refreshing your memories:

Prime Mike Tyson was KO'ed by featherfisty Buster Douglas

And although Tyson's KO'loss has been described as "one of the most shocking upsets in modern sports history" it was NOT a fluke: It was because Iron Mike Tyson was in reality Tiny Mike Tyson (5'10'') (sometimes even written "Mike Thaison")

Now, what he achieved career-wise DESPITE his size is remarkable. But to claim that he would beat every opponent within 1 round (including modern heavyweights like ·Wladimir Klitschko) is simply ignorance of his CAREER FACTS, because there is one major feature that unites Tyson's non-KO opponents:

The ONLY time Tyson scored a knockout against a taller+better opponent was against ·Lou Savarese (46-6). But that was some strange KO (the referee jumped in way too fast in my opinion and additionally Tyson was lucky he wasn't disqualified) and Savarese came from a loss after a 1-year-layoff. So it's hardly a proof for "Tyson, the Goliath killer".

Yes, Tyson did KO guys taller than 6'3'', but they were all bums[?] like ·Conroy Nelson (21-14) or ·Eddie Richardson (14-21) or ·David Jaco (24-25). But there was no BoxRec back then thus nobody knew how bad these opponents actually were.

Other than that: As soon as the opponents got bigger+skilled Tyson failed. All your childhood memories of opponents flying to the left and right have to be adjusted to the truth: The opponents were either small or bummy or both ("Fly, bummy, fly!").

The longest Mike Tyson ever needed to KO someone

Already against bigger and not-so-good opponents Tyson had his difficulties:

Take for example ·James Tillis (42-22) who is mistakenly listed at 6'1'' (at boxrec) but was taller. Tillis ended Tyson's KO streak. And were it not for the unfortunate out-of-balance flash knockdown in round #4 Tillis might have even won against Tyson.

As you see Mike was more limited by the weight than by the quality of opposition. Tyson's triple point is approximately at 225 lbs where he could go either way: KO'win, decision, loss. Unfortunately for Mike his triple point is nowadays the entry point for the heavyweight division (70% of the opponents of he Klitschkos are 225+):

You see 1) how the division changed while Tyson was in prison and 2) How Mike's chances diminished once the division got considerably heavier.

Remember the fight Wladimir Klitschko vs Sultan Ibragimov?

The small guy (Ibragimov) was like Tyson's average opponent BEFORE prison (actually Ibragimov was heavier).

The big guy (Klitschko) was like Tyson's average opponent AFTER prison.

No wonder that Tyson's best days were behind him: The division got too modern for Mike and would be even more dangerous with the advent of the Klitschkos. One has to doubt whether he would actually be given the chance to fight against the Klitschkos, since Mike would probably fail already against gatekeepers.

Emanuel Steward on Mike Tyson

What I did with the tables and stats above, Emanuel Steward perfectly sums up with words:

"When Mike started fighting those big guys – and I always keep going back to the size factor. He still was a little guy. He could neutralize his size handicap with speed. His speed was so effective that the big guys were often clumsy uncoordinated who were bigger than him, until he fought those big guys who had skills and were not afraid of him.

But the big guys who were not super skillful, he would neutralize the size disadvantage with tremendous speed, footwork, head movement, and punching from short angles with all different types of punches."

Emanuel Steward, Hall of Fame Trainer

and

"To me Mike Tyson is one of the fighters I respect so much for what he did for being a small man, because he was still a small heavyweight. The biggest thing he had was his speed and intensity over a lot of big guys, when they were not prepared or well enough coordinated to deal with that.

But the big guys who were not afraid of Mike and had any boxing skills, he had a problem with because Mike was a little guy…

Mike had problems with big guys! He was still a small guy that was really almost like a cruiserweight, and those big guys who were not afraid of him, all of them he struggled with… So it’s just the case where Mike was a phenomenal fighter, but with the big guys size still matters. You’re going to fight a guy (like Lennox Lewis) who’s 240-250, with skills, solid amateur background, went through 2 Olympics—no, I don’t think he could have done anything.

Evander Holyfield by the same token was just physically too small and Evander always had problems with jabs. I mean I trained him, and I had him sparring with guys who had good jabs, which is something he did have problems with."

(*) Kevin McBride has not a single KO'win (aside from Tyson) against a non-bum opponent
See Definitions

As you can see from the table Tyson was KO'ed by far lesser boxers (and far lesser punchers) than the Klitschkos. If you claim that Wladimir Klitschko wouldn't be able to KO Tyson then you basically claim that the Klitschkos are lesser fighters than Buster Douglas, Danny Williams or Kevin McBride, which is of course a ridiculous statement. Especially since the Klitschkos already beat all Tyson KO'ers (or their conquerors).

We also know Tyson's animal'ish features from Tyson's ring behaviour: Yes, Tyson could snap like a panther on speed (and even bite!) but he also showed signs of "adjusting to the hierarchy" as soon as he noticed that his opponent was the alpha male:

"Cus D'Amato told me, 'You're the type of guy who has to be hurt to learn.'
I'm pissed off today because he was right about everything"

Larry Merchant about Tommy Brooks (trainer of both Mike Tyson and Wladimir Klitschko)"Tommy Brooks.. perhaps said one of the highest compliments to Klitschko, when he said, his hands are faster than Tyson's were."

Emanuel Steward (HOF trainer):"That's a tremendous compliment, especially when you consider the man is 6'6''"

So here you have it: Mike Tyson's asset is the "surprise effect" (= the opponent doesn't expect the punch and since it comes so suddenly it has a shock-effect) while Wladimir Klitschko hits HARDER AND FASTER.

Partly Mike could be so surprising because he was small thus could rotate 'n' hook his arms so fast. He also had a good uppercut. But the hook speed and the uppercut get less and less relevant the more your opponents get out of reach.

Thus such "surprise punches" come especially in close-range situations and therefore there is basically no chance to surprise the Klitschkos since they have perfected the skill of keeping opponents at bay.

"Size is not everything"

And for those who claim that "size is not everything" let me assure you:
Your chances (I checked several ten thousand fights) to win are approximately 1:3 if you are out-weighed and out-talled. In other words: You need to be 3 times better than your opponent if he outsizes you. Even if you don't believe that Klitschko has too much advantages over a small opponent you have to accept that being out-talled and out-weighed and out-reached so much definitely won't help you.

No comment needed

Mike Tyson vs The world

When you speculate about a Klitschko vs Tyson match it's also interesting to point out that 4 of the 5 KO'losses of Tyson happened against non-US boxers (or happened not in the US):

James Buster Douglas: Fight in Japan

Lennox Lewis: Canadian boxer

Danny Williams: British boxer

Kevin McBride: Irish boxer

This also applies to Mike Tyson's slowest KOs:

Jose Ribalta (TKO 10): Cuban boxer (see above)
Mike's most late KO

·Donovan Ruddock (TKO 7, UD12): Canadian boxer
The first fight was unnecessarily stopped by the referee (in my view) thus Mike's next fight was a rematch. The rematch went full 12 rounds.

This may hint at what many have claimed:
That the "greats of the past" were not really great but rather living in a US boxing reserve, where only little international boxers had access (Soviet boxers were FORBIDDEN to box professionally) ("United greats of America").

As soon as US boxers (and Mike Tyson and RJJ are just 2 examples) got thrown onto the global boxing scene you saw them fading.

Additionally it has been claimed by many that Tyson's major asset was his ability to induce fear. Thus the fear would be especially strong in the USA due to the ubiquity of Mike Tyson anecdotes. Watch Mike Tyson vs James Smith to see how easily a non-fearful opponent could handle Mike. Emmanuel Steward perfectly sums it up:

"But he also fought guys who were scared to death of him. When he faced a guy who wasn't afraid, he had problems like he did with Mitch Green, Tony Tucker, Bonecrusher Smith and Quick Tillis. Mike WAS in his prime when he fought them and they weren't legendary names either… they just weren't afraid of him."

(Emmanuel Steward, HOF trainer)

It's important to know that Wladimir Klitschko strikes more fear into his opponents as they don't even want sign the contracts while Tyson's opponents at least dared to step into the ring with him. Thus when it comes to fear Wladimir has an advantage.

A peculiarity about "Mike Tyson vs Boxer XYZ"

There is something that you should know about Mike Tyson fans:

No other fans ignore and repress a boxer's losses (and worse performances) more than Tyson fans. It's as if Tyson never lost or as if Tyson always won by KO in round 1.

Usually the ONLY two "arguments" that Tyson fans state are…

"Prime Tyson was a beast. He wins against Wladimir Klitschko within ((insert number)) seconds" (broken record #1)

"Wladimir has been KO'ed by RoCoLa (Ross, Corrie, Lamon) what makes you think that he can survive Tyson" (broken record #2)

Argument #1 forgets that this "beast" was schooled by Buster Douglas and others.

Moreover it utterly ignores Tyson's worse performances thus the logic could actually go the other way too: "If Tyson got KO'ed by Buster Douglas what makes you think Tyson can survive a Klitschko?".

Additionally it ignores that Wladimir Klitschko's KO'ers (RoCoLa) are not comparable to Tyson (size, weight, stance, reach) while at the same time Tyson's KO'ers _ARE_ comparable to Klitschko (size, weight, reach, stance, experience).

In other words: The correct question that Tyson fans should ask themselves is…

What makes you think that Mike Tyson could
survive a Klitschko for 1 round?

I urge everybody to watch Mike Tyson vs James Smith. This was PRIME Mike Tyson. The fight before he KO'ed Trevor Berbick (KO2) and the fight after he KO'ed Pinklon Thomas (KO6).

And yet, look how easily Mike Tyson is being held at bay by occasional jabs and clinching. James Smith wasn't even too experienced (19-5). He was 13 years older than Mike and a somewhat featherfisty opponent (51% KO'ratio in whole career). He wasn't even protecting his chin especially well. Even a bummy featherfist like James Broad (23-10, 15 KOs) KO'ed James Smith. And yet the same Smith makes Prime Tyson look like a green.

NOBODY who watched Mike Tyson vs James Smith can believe that Mike would have KO'ed a Klitschko in that ring that night. Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko would have steamrolled over Mike Tyson that night and probably any other night.

Mike Tyson would KO Lennox Lewis in 1 round

I guarantee you that the same talks would go on if Lennox Lewis had not faced Mike Tyson. You would hear the same arguments:

"Mike is a beast"

"Mike would murder Lennox Lewis"

"Lennox was KO'ed by featherfist Oliver McCall. There is no chance china-chin Lennox could withstand Tyson's Power"

…

And why would Tyson fans talk like that? Because they are too impressed by Tyson's wins (against smaller or bummier opponents) while ignoring his real stats against better+taller opponents.

Mike Tyson vs Wladimir Klitschko already happened

Unfortunately Vitali Klitschko vs Mike Tyson never happened. It was already in the making, but then Mike Tyson lost to Danny Williams and thus Vitali fought Williams instead (an utterly one-sided beatdown).

However, if you want to know how a Wladimir Klitschko vs Mike Tyson clash would look like then watch THE FIRST ROUND of Wladimir Klitschko vs Lamon Brewster (by the way, ·Lamon Brewster has pretty much the same overall KO'ratio like Mike Tyson):

Mike Tyson would most probably storm forward the same way like Brewster
… and Klitschko would as easily handle Tyson the same way.

I know that the comparison is a little bit off since you could claim "If you want to see how a Wladimir-vs-Tyson-clash would END then watch the last round" to which I would simply reply that the real end happened at the rematch ("Klitschko vs Brewster II").

Tyson's resume

But let me end with something positive about Tyson:

Mike Tyson's KOs are overrated
but his career record is underrated

Mike Tyson is definitely an ATG: Career-wise, performance-wise and impressiveness-wise. There is no chance that the boxing world will ever forget him.

you have to remember about Mike Tyson, to me he’s one of the fighters I respect so much for what he did for being a small man, because he was still a small heavyweight. The biggest thing he had was his speed and intensity over a lot of big guys, when they were not prepared or well enough coordinated to deal with that. But the big guys who were not afraid of Mike and had any boxing skills, he had a problem with because Mike was a little guy.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 3.5/5 (42 votes cast)

Tyson vs Klitschko -OR- Mike Tyson would KO Wladimir and Vitali within 1 round, 3.5 out of 5 based on 42 ratings

Advertisement

Donate/Socialize...

Sport Jokes

Comments (93)

Really end? What f*ck that means? You wanna take credit from Brewster victory? But than do not say you are objective. Everybody know that in second fight Brewster was in worse shape and Wlad was in worse shape during the first fight.

It was a punchers chance victory and Wladimir looked a little over exerted. Probably from all the clinching lol. Wladimir learnt from his mistakes after his losses is also true. But big punches and gassing are part of boxing and you can't cover that up. The fact he didn't pace himself or was over extended means he needed better conditioning or was wasting energy. The fact he got knocked despite he was winning means he needed to be more defensive (which is why we find Wlad the way he is now lol). Anyway Brewster is in overall terms a good boxer, he beat Wlad fair and square.

3/ A BOXER being in the "Hall of Fame" is irrelevant for their credibility (it consists of some boxers who are demonstratably not the best and excludes some boxers who demonstratably are) let alone someone analysing their performance.

4/ Tyson went bankrupt lol

5/ Tyson didn't rule he was defeated by Holyfield and Lewis in signature fights and had his opening streak broken by a journeyman opponent. And if admin and his mother both sucked cock as good as Tyson fought they would both be famous for more than just this blog :)

Yeah I agree with Tim Gentry, but I can see Tyson (the young version) and Holyfield (during the Bowe / Foreman period) beating the Klits too.

Besides those 2 having chances I believe Lennox Lewis would be a nightmare for Wladimir Klitschko stylistically. That overhand right just comes out of nowhere with so much power and precision. Lennox KO'd a bunch of quality oponents with that right.

and I believe if there was tournament between these 5 prime for prime, anybody could beat anybody, with Holyfield having the least wins and Lennox the most. What's your personal opinion and what do the statistics say?

your statistics are based on tysons whole boxing career, but the last 10 years should not be counted, because he was not the same fighter who became undisputed champ in 1988. kevin mcbride and danny williams would not last 5 rounds against iron mike back in 1988.

Some things cannot be calculated with statistics, things that play a HUGE role in life which affects fighting abilty. like in tysons case:
– a messed up personal life (divorce, jail etc)
– loss of motivation resulting in skipping training sessions, fighting only for money etc.
– aging/losing speed (peak-a-boo lost his effectiveness)

Conclusion: when you are talking about prime Tyson, the last 10 years of his boxing career should not be counted. I know it sounds ridiculous, cause everybody has/had problems, but in his case it is true because jailtime and the loss of his peak a boo style ruined his legacy.

im not a tyson nuthugger. im fan of klitschkos / lewis / foreman / evan fields. basically all the greats (except ali, he was just boring to watch). just needed to make this point.

your statistics are based on tysons whole boxing career, but the last 10 years should not be counted

Very convenient for you. Mike boxed in 18 years and the last 10 should not be counted. Seriously?

because he was not the same fighter who became undisputed champ in 1988. kevin mcbride and danny williams would not last 5 rounds against iron mike back in 1988.

Pure speculation. Additionally it's a VERY COMMON statement to claim that Mike was shot after prison.

I utterly don't accept this notion. Mike was released out of prison when he was 28 years old, which is usually the prime of a heavyweight.

I have no doubt that Mike Tyson II was actually Mike's prime, despite of many Tyson fans claiming the opposite.

Some things cannot be calculated with statistics, things that play a HUGE role in life which affects fighting abilty. like in tysons case:
– a messed up personal life (divorce, jail etc)
– loss of motivation resulting in skipping training sessions, fighting only for money etc.
– aging/losing speed (peak-a-boo lost his effectiveness)

But I could argue exactly the other way around, too:

Klitschko beats Mike BEFORE prison –> "Oh, it was Mike's inexperience"
Klitschko gets beaten by Mike AFTER prison –> "Oh, Mike got his life in order and left his criminal past behind"

This is all adding an additional layer of speculation.

The only hard facts we have is:
* Tyson performed worse the heavier and taller the opponents got (pre- and post-prison)
* Since Tyson's opponents got considerably heavier post-prison (see Ibragimov example above) Mike had no other chance than to perform worse
* It would be very astonishing if 29-32 years wouldn't be the prime of a heavyweight boxer, especially since Mike wasn't involved in too many wars before prison
* If you want to delete fights off the record when Mike was 29+ years of age (= his last 10 years) then equally we can delete the WINS off Tyson's record against opponents who were 29+ years of age, which by the way deletes 30 of his fights, including Nielsen, Bruno, Berbick, Spinks and Holmes. One cannot cherry-pick "Oh, 29, that's old" but then fully credit Mike's wins against 29-year-olds.

But admin, whatever happened with Tyson against Buster aside, he did lay off his real coach and after that he spent a few years in jail where he couldn't train boxing properly at all or box and while in prison undertook significant weight training instead which I believe didn't help his style one bit because he needed to be fast and dynamic. Age wise yes he would have still been in his prime but his prime as far as his ability goes was pre-jail.

Bonecrusher Smith, Mitch Green, Kevin McBride, bwah hahahaha you can't be serious. Smith was so scared that he held Tyson like an octopus for the whole fight and only threw one meaningful punch in the final round, while Green ran like a thief and also continously held Tyson. The big oaf McBride couldn't punch hard enought to crack an egg, but just leaned on a old, unmotivated, undertrained shadow of Mike Tyson. We all know about Buster but we also know that leading up to that fight, Tyson wasn't focused on training and was even floored in a sparring session, not to mention he had at this time probably the most inept corner ever assembled for a championship fight. Meanwhile Buster despite or because of the death of his mother put on the best fight of his career against a highly unfocused undertrained Tyson. People tend to forget that Tyson had Douglas all but knocked out before being knocked out himself, Douglas was just in an incredible zone that night in a once in a lifetime type of performance against a sub-par Tyson. Earlier Tyson victims like Frank Bruno, Pinklon Thomas, and Trevor Berbick were all about Buster's size so that I would say Buster's will and not his size were the determining factor in this fight. Tyson in his prime was a larger, more powerful, faster, two-handed version of Joe Frazier with defense and I think Joe would go the distance with Wlad only to lose a decision. For Tyson I see him stopping Wlad by TKO in 10.

Bonecrusher Smith, Mitch Green, Kevin McBride, bwah hahahaha you can't be serious. Smith was so scared that he held Tyson like an octopus for the whole fight and only threw one meaningful punch in the final round, while Green ran like a thief and also continously held Tyson. The big oaf McBride couldn't punch hard enought to crack an egg

This is _EXACTLY_ what I am saying. These guys were far from stellar, yet Tyson could not handle them properly because they were too tall.

This is _EXACTLY_ what I am saying. These guys were far from stellar, yet Tyson could not handle them properly because they were too tall.
You contradict yourself because in another article you said that height is not such a big advantage. In reality it is a huge factor. When Wladimir Klitschko faced Tony Thompson his awesome defence was useless because Thompson was almost as tall as Wlad. Punching power won him the fight. I think that Mike would be more competive against Vitalij. Vitalij is slower and does not have same punching power as Wlad.

I did not know that Thompson was heavier but he had many chances to attack Wlad. Wlads chin was wide open. It was a shame that Thompson was featherfist because technicaly he was very solid. Even Lewis said that.

Thompson is not a featherfist. And considering that his KOratio is mainly hurt by his lackluster performance at the start of his career (= all of his first 5 fights ended as a non-KO), you could even make the case that his actually an extremely strong KOer.

That Thompson lost basically every round while outweighing Wlad just shows you the class that Wlad is.

And, look, you can always find some guy who was taller and lost or who was taller and won. And you can always find some guy who was heavier and lost or was lighter and won.

The point is: There is a STRONG connection between WEIGHT and winning chances, while there is a WEAK connection between height and winning chances.

If you had 2 choices (bummy+tall opponent and or a bummy+heavy opponent) then choose the bummy+tall opponent to increase your winning chances, because heavy opponents are dangerous even when bummy.

If you have 2 choices (bummy+heavy or NONBUMMY+light) the choose bummy+heavy to increase your winning chances

If you have 2 choices (bummy+tall or NONBUMMY+small) then choose bummy+small to increase your winning chances

If you have 2 choices (bummy+athletic or NONBUMMY+chubby) then choose bummy+athletic to increase your winning chances

Therefore in Tyson's case the height mattered a lot, because Tyson was SO SMALL and the guys mentioned in my article were not the usual bums.

When Tyson fought bummy+tall opponents he KOed them as you would expect by a non-bum to perform against bums.

Thompson was no great KO artist. He is not in same league as Mike Tyson, Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis. Please stop overrating Wlads oponnents. His two best oponents were Corrie Sanders and David Haye. My personal opinion is that prime Riddick Bowe would be great challenge for Wlad.

Obviously Riddick would be challenge for Wladimir. Even thought Bowe dodged Lewis, had they fought, Lewis would not have "walked over" Bowe, as would be the case Wlad vs Bowe. To simply dismiss great modern boxing champ against Wlad with a simple statement "he would throw his belt in the trash" but devote 10 articles to how Wladimir would kill a champ of 40 years ago does not cut it.

Once again you are miscomparing stats to prove your point. Tyson had a solid punch that knocked out well over 20 opponents all taller than him. After he went to prison where he couldn't train he was on a decline, especially when don king (that ex murderer) started to influence him and distract him.

Tyson would have destroyed klitcho because klitcho faces the same problem, never having fought a fighter of decent skill except Lewis and he got it handed to him.

Tyson and Tommy Morrison are my 2 favourite boxers and they both were champions and both competitive in the modern sense. But they would NOT have destroyed the Klitschko's dude. Tommy was not skilled enough to get inside Wlad and land his big bombs. He still had enough skill to last with Wlad and had a strong punchers chance (one of the hardest punchers of all time) but probably would have ended the same as with Lennox. Tommy also had a suspect chin. Tyson very similar, slightly less power but with more skill may have been able to get into Tyson and work on the inside where he was adept but once again it probably would have ended similar to how it did with Lennox. We have to admit that.

you have to remember about Mike Tyson, to me he’s one of the fighters I respect so much for what he did for being a small man, because he was still a small heavyweight. The biggest thing he had was his speed and intensity over a lot of big guys, when they were not prepared or well enough coordinated to deal with that. But the big guys who were not afraid of Mike and had any boxing skills, he had a problem with because Mike was a little guy.

I agree totally with you. He was small and still pretty damn good boxer. But this could be used in Joe Frazier case too. I do not know why you hate Joe Frazier so much that you actually call him one eyed dwarf (when in reality he was taller than Mike). I think that Mike Joe and Marciano are three small heavyweights who were sometimes much better than their taller oponents. They all deserve credit. Not only Mike.

I have nothing against Frazier. I have something against Frazier mythology.

I think that Mike Joe and Marciano are three small heavyweights who were sometimes much better than their taller oponents. They all deserve credit. Not only Mike.

Marciano deserves credit as boxer, not as heavyweight. Mike Tyson was a heavyweight because he was _HEAVY_ fighting other _HEAVY_ boxers. Rocky Marciano wasn't. Neither was he a heavyweight, nor was he fighting heavy boxers.

Yes Joe mythology right? It seems that Joe and Muhammad are your least favorite boxers. That is your opinion but it is not necessary to critisize them for not fullfiling your image of great boxers. They were great boxers (my opinion).

I can see how Joe and Mike can be compared with their comparable sizes and swarming style, that comparison is most close and obvious. But that's where it ends imo. I can't see h2h Joe performing much better than his son. Frazier was nothing compared to Tyson. Tyson even had better opponents at respective stages of their careers in relative and absolute terms.

Also Tyson was a jacked athlete. Frazier was not. Obviously Frazier was good boxer to make it to the top. But imo he was only champion for a time because he was lucky. Ali was stripped. Frazier fought an elimination. Frazier got bashed by a real champion and lost it. The fact that Frazier beat Ali once and was problems for him was as the author tells it. A proof that Ali was limited, not the greatness of Frazier. More specifically it was representative of the "styles make fights" hypothesis. A swarmer like Frazier WOULD pose problems for a featherfist like Ali. Had he the power of Tyson, Frazier would have supplanted Ali conclusively. Frazier would have failed against Holmes, another outside fighter and been stopped by all later ranged fighters quite easily because they all had big punches to catch him on the way in. This is just my opinion Honza but I wanted to explain my view more fully since I have trash talked Frazier without really explaining it elsewhere.

"NOBODY who watched Mike Tyson vs James Smith can believe that Mike would have KO'ed a Klitschko in that ring that night. Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko would have steamrolled over Mike Tyson that night and probably any other night."

I watched that fight at the time.

Smith made no attempt to win against Tyson.

Could Wlad or Vitali have beaten Tyson on that night? Possibly on points or by late round stoppage but that's not a given.

Tyson could be frustrated by tall men fighting to survive and that much is true.

BTW, Tyson vs Ruddock 1 stopped to early?

You must be joking. Tyson was a mile ahead on points and the fight is stopped when Ruddock's arms and legs declare independence from the rest of him.

The K brothers have one huge advantage of Tyson though. They are professional and Tyson wasn't after 1989, not consistently and you can't keep doing that in boxing and get away with it.

1) Seconds after "the stoppage" a riot breaks out in the ring. The TV commentator (SHOWTIME) says: "That's gonna be ugly now. That was too too soon. He wasn't down. He hadn't been counted. That was too soon a knockdown", "a total fiasco", "that was surely bad judgment", "another questionable judgment" and many other things.

2) The TV commentator (KINGVISION) says: "That is absolutely ridiculous", "How can they stop the fight like that?", "premature stoppage", "what a pity, what a shame that that had to end like that" and Lennox Lewis (a co-commentator) says "That definitely was controversial".

3) Why else would they rematch 3 months later?

4) Why else would the reporter before the rematch say "This rematch is taking place because of that controversial finish in the first fight"

Some facts: 1986-08-17 Tyson knocked out Ribalta . 1985-04-29 Smith-Ribalta WSD10.
This is a big difference.
1985-09-11 Marvis Frazier-Ribalta WMD10
This is a big difference again.
1987-01-17 Ribalta-Leon Spinks WTKO1
1990-07-19 Tim Witherspoon-Ribalta WMD10
I think steward was a jealous Tyson hater.Tyson hadn't problem the height.
I accept the height and weight mania reigns in this (i think overmanaged,doping influenced)
boxing but Tyson beat lots of 6'4" or taller fighter easily.Respect tha fact at least!
And don't forget Holyfield,lewis,klitschko were very skinny beanpoles earlier but their WELL-trained years.I think their results based on doping and this is a shame.
For example the prime Lewis in 1998 ran a ridicolous incredible lame estimated 3:13:9 at
half mile in The Superstars.An average Joe can do this far better.
Like or not Tyson's had much more talent for HEAVYWEIGHT(not just pound for pound)
boxing than klitschko(Vitali was only 205 pounds against Warring on a kick-boxing match),Lewis,
Holyfield.And Chris Byrd(a weak,talentless,fat,glass-chinned,boring guy) beat vitali.
Boxing is an overrated suckfest!But, please respect the facts and don't create false,pathetic
interpretations for klitschko sisters' reputation!

Like or not Tyson's had much more talent for HEAVYWEIGHT(not just pound for pound) boxing than klitschko(Vitali was only 205 pounds against Warring on a kick-boxing match),Lewis, Holyfield.

1) Pure speculation.

2) What has Vitali Klitschko's weight to do with talent?

3) The question "Who has more talent?" is irrelevant for any question asked/answered in this blog. I could claim "Lennox Lewis' MOTHER had more talent than Tyson" and everyone would be as "informed" as before.

4) Arguing with "talent" is even more worthless than with "footwork". Talent arguments will go on in 100 years and are fruitless. I guarantee you that even nowadays boxing fans ask questions like "Had Frazier more talent than Jim Jeffries?"

5) Not only that there won't be any conclusion to such questions, they are basically worthless because even in your own words, Tyson had more talent than Evan Fields, yet got beaten twice.

Whatever man, when it all comes to it, Klitschko's suck, they are the best because it is a weak era, if they were boxing in times of legends no1 would have ever heared of those 2 bozo's. Their fighting style is always soooo boring to watch and they got absolutely no personality at all.

Just let them retire or lets a hope a young gun steps up and demolish them both!

What rubbish. In what era would you find the Klitschko's on the top tier? If you think they are boring that is your call don't even try to say they would be anonymous in any earlier era you know that isn't true!

Tyson is the sharpest double edged sword of boxing. One thing is abundantly clear from the get go. I like watching a Wlad/Vitali/Lennox fight. Tactical boxing matches which also feature KO's are entertainment :) but they do not excite nearly as much as a Tyson marathon does. He was the most explosive HW of all time, my personal favourite to watch!

Now Wladimir would likely bash Tyson, but I feel he would win based purely on his height/reach and weight. Sure he has perfected his minimalist style to keep a swarming fighter like Tyson at bay, Tyson who has lost to far inferior competition to Wladimir, he is very skilled but there are 2 versions of Mike.

I know Mike fought lots of bums and cruisers early on when he was touted as the hottest thing since sliced bread and when the competition got better and bigger Mike became more challenged and that is true. But it also coincided with the observable fact that after Mike fired Rooney you can clearly see a degeneration of his style. Lack of head movement, peek-a-boo guard and combination punching. He lost himself. Rooney's Mike who demonstrated this style was by FAR a more SKILLED boxer than Wladimir is. He was 7" shorter and 30lbs lighter and may never have been able to defeat prime Wladimir but in my opinion it took far more skill to stay in close and perform that style, that awesome defense and killer attack than it currently takes for Wlad to keep a fighter at bay and pick his shots while skipping out of range into relative safety when things get too hot.

If Tyson had kept it together and continued to develop that beautiful style he had there is no telling how much further it may have taken him. He may never have beaten Lennox or might not have been able to defeat Wlad or Vitali, any claims to that are speculative, but I would certainly give him more than a punchers chance if things had been a little different for Mike.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't hard to imagine Mike beating Lennox and moving on to being the greatest Heavyweight of the 90s as well as the 80s. It didn't happen and may not have regardless of fate but I believe he had the tools to make it.

He had and I think that if the match had hapenned 10 years before Mike would had bigger chance beating Lewis. Imagine Riddick vs. Bowe in 1992. That would be good fight. Larry Holmes said that he would rather fight Lewis instead of Riddick.

Funny you say that, my mate came around for a drink last night and after a few Tyson fights we watched the Bowe/Holy trilogy. What an epic battle lol. Holyfield is a stellar HW of course. And Bowe, despite not fighting a lot of the top contenders of the era which is a shame because he sure could have rocked, was still so awesome. Whether he could have beaten Lewis we can't say but he sure as hell would have been the toughest competition he had faced. Bowe had enough attributes, the size and skill to be one of the greatest champs as well.

I understand Wladimir never wanted to fight his brother fair enough but Wladimir never fought anybody as massive AND skilled as Riddick Bowe.

As an aside, Holyfield too while I admit was/would be challenged prime for prime by the size of Lennox/Wladimir/Vitali, displayed higher skill level, his came in the form of his counter punching and most well rounded development of all HW's imo. His failure against the bigger boys would be a result of his physical limitations. His modern resistance training can compensate and increase for many things, except obviously height and reach and most importantly it does not significantly increase punch power! It will in the sense that the increased muscle represents an increased weight. But the muscle strength, the usual bulk muscles anyway, increase it only slightly and are best developed through the heavy bag. I think Holyfield's losses to his smaller opponents at HW may be a result of how weights may have stiffened him up somewhat. A double edged sword, trying to gain muscle weight to fight the big boys but in the process negatively affecting your ability to match the smaller ones.

A double edged sword, trying to gain muscle weight to fight the big boys but in the process negatively affecting your ability to match the smaller ones.

I agree. Good example was his fight with Byrd. I believe that being that young fast Evander than Byrd would not have much of a chance against him. Maybe. Also I like your favorites from 90s. Here is my list of top dogs of 90s: Evander, Riddick, Mercer, Tommy, Mike, Lewis, Larry, George. Those guys would be dangerous in any era I believe.

Yeah it's a mirror image list of mine as well. George had the lasting attributes to fight on. Tommy may have faced some issues but that punch lol he was one of my favs im a fan :). Mercer first to stop him and in brutal fashion was great and Larry shrewdly def Ray was proof how Larry's talent was sufficient to carry him past his prime into what I call the "golden age".

I rate a lot of the cruisers turned heavies quite high today, the ones of late 00s and 10s being comparable to the 90s/early00s like Mercer and Byrd. But it's hard to find one who would have any clear advantage against a prime Evander. David Haye? Haye vs Holyfield prime4prime. Another interesting match.

On another article I just said that Haye and Holy are somekind similiar. I was talking about Their fights with Lewis and Wladimir (those are also very similiar). It would be nice fight Haye vs. Evander. And for last I have one question. Do you think that Larry had better oponents than George? I personally think that Larry was better boxer (even that I like George more) but their records seems very equal.

Alright let me say first that over all Larry defeated more good opponents over all (but Foreman had a few good ones as well) so I can see your dilemma there. But despite being much slicker I have a hard time imagining Foreman not eventually being able to bomb out Michael Spinks (young or old version), he didn't like to be hit very hard, Larry not being a really big hitter like Foreman having to go about this one the hard way. I think Tyson would have defeated George too had they fought despite contrary statements from himself and his trainer. Larry has some pretty good fighters like Mercer on his list late in career when Foreman met his 90's contenders and Larry beat more of his. Foreman failed against Tommy for example and the Moorer win was lucky imo.

Anyway Larry is a better boxer of course but couldn't crack an egg compared to George so they are very interesting match up in fact. I view both as bridging the gap between modern and old and to be quite honest I couldn't place a bet either way because even though Larry would outbox George there is significant chance of a KO from the big fella. But overlooking win/loss their opponents faced do look equal agreed :)

If I can comeback to Riddick Bowe. He was appreciated by Manny Steward as well. When Manny trained Holy before scond fight he said something like this: "Bowe is is better at everything. This is gonna be very hard training". He was right. Just compare those two. Holy was bigger, heavyer, younger, harder hitter and just like Evander was able fight both inside and outside. I also hope that you will watch Douglas/Tyson fight. There is short shot on Evander being in the crowd. When I saw him I was like:"This is just a start to a great decade of boxing". All those great bouts: Holy/Riddick trilogy, Mike vs. Holy, Tommy vs. George, Mercer vs. Tommy, Mike vs. Ruddock, Lewis vs. Holy, Holy vs. Moorer etc.

:) Thanks for reminding me once again of my favourite era as well! Believe me when I tell you there will be some pop corn nights coming up this month. Yes that guy was truly a monster lol. It would have cemented the era totally if Bowe had fought Lewis. I wonder if he might have won. Lennox never faced an opponent like that. Don't know why he ducked really, I find it hard to believe he was scared, he was simply awesome and I would regard him just as highly as the Klits and Lewis in competition for the GOAT award, he just needed to be proven. How some people can get hard ons over MMA and kickboxing I don't understand when you compare to such excitement that only boxing of this calibre and competitiveness can provide like in all those battles you mentioned!

Your knowledge of this sport is really extensive. As is Aswins as well. You must have thoroughly researched for a long time this stuff. Since you are the most open-minded one of us Admin should lend use of his tables and let you write articles for compensation payment lol :)

Actually he faced Vitali of course, silly me lol :) Just watched part 1, the pace and heart in that fight was truly great and how good was round 10 where Holy was pretty much comatosed within moments of the rounds open and then coming back to nearly knock out Bowe by end of the round what a champ. I like his little slang match with Lennox at the end saying he isn't scared of him and Lennox just flat out tellin him he's gonna knock him out lol he certainly seemed pretty sure of himself there. I never seen press conference where Bowe threw belt in trash, seems he really didn't like the idea of fighting Lennox, do you know what he said/happened there? After fighting that battle I would have thought he'd have gone all out for Lennox. Apparently he was lazy with training so maybe if he put in more he woulda felt more confident about it. I believe he could have done well, atleast gone the distance.

When Riddick ducked Lewis I think he was not scared. I think he hated Lewis because of Lewis ego (he was always big mouth and still is today). I have seen their confrontation after Riddick first victory over Evader. Lewis was not even there to gratulate Riddick. He was just talking about being better then both (later he said that he is glad that Evander and Riddick are fighting again because it makes them eaysier to beat them later). Riddick vs. Lewis in 1992 would be great. I can see Riddick winning that one. As Eddie Futch told him: "I trained Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes and you have potential to be better than all of them. Riddick is my favorite but I feel sorry for him. I think his worst mistake was lack of determination.

Yeah well he showed it in that fight but so did Evander, and yeah it could have cost him a longer reign. Lennox had only just come off Ruddock fight there so he wasn't too seasoned there I can see no reason why he couldn't have beat him. Yeah I thought the way he treated Bowe was very rude especially after what he'd just been through. Affable old Foreman when later asked about possible fight with Bowe was only too happy to congratulate Bowe with hugs and smile and saying it was his night so lets not take it away from him. Boy how did Foremans attitude change over the years lol :) Yeah Lennox cockiness wasn't easy to warm to as someone like Ali or Tyson's because he simply was not funny haha!

And yes, little respect. Actually I was happy after Vitali/Lewis fight when that reporter pretty much insinuated that Lewis would have lost if not for the cut stoppage. Not arguing what would have happened but thought it was funny how he started whinging and getting snappy with reporter lol

Lewis seemed that he want to sure himself that he would win. But do not forget that Vitali acted like child after the fight. He did not seemed like well aducated man. But maybe I was just happy seeing him loose. And about George. You know he was (at old age) kind like Batman to me. Bruce Wayne outside the ring and Dark knight inside. Just watch his look when he was in the ring. He wasou know I was boxing fan since childhood (I am 23 now). And I was always fan of afroamerican boxers (since first Rocky movie). I just always wanted to see them win. When I was small kid I knew only Mike and I was like "he is the greatest boxer" than my father came to me and said "Do you want to see bear? Look at me." I asked him who said that? He replied: Muhammad Ali. The greatest boxer. So I get to know another great. To be honest I did not like him for a first time. He get my respect after I saw Rumble and Manila fight. He is my favorite since that. My brother than introduced me to Evander Holyfield because he told about his two victories over Mike. And a lot of other boxers I get to know from great documents like Legendary nights and Beyond the glory. Watch them if you can Tommo. :)

Nice, thanks man :) The list of downloads is mounting up now, you've given me enough material to keep me busy for awhile haha :) Yes I do have respect for Ali in Zaire fight. From what I seen in fight and in documentary and reviews from the time I would have thought he was toast. Foreman certainly seemed unbeatable. I would have to say the fighter I respect the most in terms of heart/courage/determination/toughness and all that subjective stuff is Evander Holyfield. He took on some of the most formidable opposition for a man his size and never seen the fear in him ever, looking calm and composed even when he was getting beaten. And he fought just about everyone who was anyone. He just needed to know when to throw in the towel. He has stated he wanted to fight on to try upset win a belt and beat Foremans record but I think that was silly of him. Foreman only could achieve that through big lucky punch but Evander does not have same chances, he's totally shot now. Feel a bit sorry for him, the wars have given him brain damage. Not a nice way for a legend to go out.

Evander is also my second most favorite after Ali. As I said eralier he is one of the most exciting to watch. His chin was well tested against punchers and as you said he never seemed afraid of his oponents. He was outweighted as heavyweight so much and still being great. I know that I said a lot of rumors but this is actually what Manny Steward said before second Holy/Lewis Fight (it was written in a boook called Killers a gentlemen in the ring): "there is no boxer who could withstand six rounds with Lewis at his curent form". That was nice even when Holy was never in danger of ko and seemed more active in their rematch.

In terms of simple numbers Riddick Bowe has better record than Lennox Lewis. From basic standpoint they are very equal. Ok Lewis had beaten Golota like nothing but than Riddick Bowe koed Evander Holyfield. Something Lewis could only dreamed of. But to be fair both those victories are kinda tricky. Evander was very ill during third battle with Riddick and Golota was not very well either when he faced Lewis. I think that would be also good idea for article. As I said they are very equal. Even the ko ratio is the "same" (they both had only 10 decision wins just like Ken Norton).

Yeah I heard that Evander had Hepatitis or something during that fight and someone else said heart condition. He still looked f*ckin good but then again so did Morrison for a little while before his "mystery" illness began to visually take its toll. He seemed to bounce back to good health though whatever it was. I honestly think it would have been a prime match up Bowe and Lennox. It's like Wladimir/Vitali wont fight now, Riddick/Lennox didn't fight then, the 2 titans of the generation for whatever reasons just can't get it on lol. The thing with their respective records though is that Bowe was could somewhat be regarded as lucky he has only the one loss to Evander on his record (later avenged anyway) after the Golotta DQ and Lennox fought the much better opponents. That's why author will pretty much dismiss Riddick, even though all that aside it would obviously be an epic fight. He just needed to hit the road more and lay off the pork chops a little lol

This article is about Mike so I rewatched some of his fights. First I enjoyed his quick one with Mcneeley (best was the staredown) and his fight with Golota. That one was very even but I think that Mike became much slower after his fights with Holy. Lewis vs Golota was completely different. I think that is how should Lewis fight with Vitali. Jump on him and take no prisoners. Again Tommo definetly watch Legendary nights documentarys. They are great.

Journey man Corrie Sanders (RIP) chased down both the Klitschko Brothers, knocked out Vladimir, and scared Vitaly in the first round. Mike Tyson would have done better by knocking them both out. Vitaly Klitschko is a good fighter because of his martial arts background. He would have beaten Tyson in a mixed martial arts bout. however to say that he could defend in boxing match against Tyson only by his jab is foolhardy. China jaw Vladmir would have fallen before round five.
The above reports are skewed as they only take into account heavy weights in the autumn of Mike's career. no mention of Bruno is made. Frank would have made comparison with the defensive Klits more convenient. The big is better argument would not hold good at all.
When most of Tyson's fans speak of his prime, they actually refer to his pre prison era.
Klitschkos are great defense fighters but would stand a snow ball's chance in hell if put in the ring with Iron mike Tyson.

Do you feel that pre-jail Rooney's Mike would have been able to defeat Lewis too? I believe Mike could have been much better than he was but I know he would always be very challenged by Lewis/Wlad/Vitali.

One could draw the conclusion that Mike would lose against the Ukrainians based roughly on what Lewis did to him but most agree, me included that this wasn't Mikes peak and definitely not as great as he could have been. I would have very much liked to have seen history be much kinder to Mike, he is one of my favourites. I never really seen Mike beat anyone as large and skilled as the giants so he's unproven there really. But I believe he had what it took.

On the flip side of that argument though, I see nobody in the Heavyweight division today to challenge the Ukranians which has the combined features of speed, power, style and fury that Iron Mike posessed. It would be a very welcoming sight!! :)

Mike was one of the kind same as George. I know that they were both different but they both possessed a ko power. Even in during Mike vs. Lewis fight you can see that Lewis was still fully aware of Mikes power even when he was winning. Mike s only real disadvatage was size. I still think tha is why he lost to Buster Douglas. But I diagree that his prime ended before his prison time. I think it was Evander who ended Mikes prime. Just watch Mikes confidence before that battle. He was looking forward to that fight. But you know that pitbull from Georgia just could not go down. Actually Evander vs. Mike I-II are for me something like a last hurray. They were last champions I really liked. Then came times of big strong guys Lewis and Klitschkos. Sad times. :)

Yeah I agree about Lewis fight. Even though Mike was worked over in that fight, Lewis played it very cautious until Mike was worn down. Especially the first round Mike got some good shots in and looked like there might have been a flash knock down but it didn't last. I think that time frame you mentioned for Mike's prime is valid in the sense that he was still very much into boxing then and still held his own self-image as a killer in the ring. I also see the speed and movement degrading though from a much earlier time, whether it was just because he got heavier or not properly trained anymore I don't know but it wasn't the same Mike for me. Watch Tyson VS Gross, The way he evaded that final assault from Reggie, maybe 20 punches all slipped except a few punches which were minimized by head movement is testament to how agile Mike was at this stage of career. He kind of transitioned into a slugger later on.

I just watched Morrison/Foreman battle again, my other favourite puncher (fans of both them in fact). You could tell Foreman was patiently walking him down keeping the pressure up hoping to bomb him out like he did to Moorer, and how strong is George when he got sick of Tommy in his face in I think 2nd round and just shoved him into the corner lol. But I reckon Tommy looked sharp as in this fight, he back pedalled the whole fight but whipped in some snappy combos and hard knocks. Old George took em good though. Tommy was puffing hard but his work rate was flat out in this fight. He still knew to respect Georges power!! :)

Yeah even though I still like boxing today I have to admit, todays HW fights don't really compare to the magic that guys like Evander and Mike did. Everyone could hold Evander in high regard and even early Mike was a peoples champion. Hard to identify with a cocky or smug giant beating everybody up.

Yeah even though I still like boxing today I have to admit, todays HW fights don't really compare to the magic that guys like Evander and Mike did. Everyone could hold Evander in high regard and even early Mike was a peoples champion. Hard to identify with a cocky or smug giant beating everybody up.

Yeah I agree. I only have some sympathy for Haye and Deontai because those two can come up with some excitement. I am really looking forward to Vitalis retirement because then Wlad will be on his own. But maybe I could like them if they loose and if so without complaining (especially Vitali talking about lossing because injuries is annoying). Did you watch legendary nights? Also beyond the glory is ok.

It is a series. There are Holy/Riddick, Riddick/Golota, Lewis/Mike, Marvin/Ray Leonard, Larry/Cooney, Marvin/Tommy Hearns, Ray Leonard/Tommy Hearns, Chavez/Taylor and George/Moorer. I think that is almost all.

I just watched Mike vs. Gross to your advice and yes I have seen that defence. It was pretty good but sometimes Mike was putting his head too low. But that is just my opinion. Anyway it was good performance but the best was still yet to come. If only I could be 10 years older. But probably nothing could really change because in comunism country we were not allowed to watch heavyweight boxing during 80s. Speaking of age. Mike was 19 back then. That means 4 years younger then me now but he looked at least five years older. He was one of those guys that looked older then they were. Similiar to Hulk Hogan. :)

LOL yeah :) I reckon he still looked reasonably young in the face but overall he looks much older because I've never seen an 18yr old with such a massive and fit build and fearsome visage like that lol, so unique! Man no sh*t, I didn't realise communism was THAT bad, especially in soviet satellite countries. I knew things were tougher and rules stringent but I also thought that the US exaggerated lots make us hate Russia. Then again I think Russia liked to milk the resources of it's subject nations to pad it's own economy, so after getting bled dry by that over bloated parasite for so long I can see that you'd be glad to see the end of that regime. I think I found you on facebook, I sent message :) Yeah there were a few flaws but I don't remember any other HW being so evasive. I really wish he kept fighting like that as he developed. I seen his battle with Ribalta the other day too. Ribalta did so well against Tyson. He fought the fight of his life there.

Great. My name at fb is Honza Hendrych. It would be great have as a friend on fb. You are great. You know I was studying our past and worst were times of 50s. So many executions and other sentences. Comnism liked to say that Catholics are agents send by Murders from Wall street. Our president Gottwald was ass kisser of Stalin. I know he was affraid of such a powerful ruler but he was still a scumback. I think admin once said that americans are coming with something like "oh my daddy was threated by soviets". Did he said something like that? Because that is exactly what hapenned to my father. Some soviet soldier pointed with his AK 47 at him. He was not about to kill him only to scare him but I do not wonder why my father still hate them to this day. Back to boxing. Yes Ribalta was beaten pretty nicely. But poor Marvis Frazier. Did you see Mikes facial exxpresion after he koed him. Scary. :)

I think that today, with the overall increase of the height and weight of boxers and champions, that if another dynamic Heavyweight with the unique combination of muscle, power, speed, movement, defense, combinations and above all fury that Tyson had emerges, that they will be somewhere in the order of 6'2 or atleast 6'1 and be a ripped/conditioned 230lbs approx. I feel that as the ranged fighters get bigger, the more squatly built pressure fighters need a proportional growth as well in order to keep up, just as evolution would dictate. However despite the effectiveness of Arreola etc they posess none of the key features that seperated Mike from the other swarming fighters (yes he's a tub for one lol) and Seth Mitchell just isn't strong enough. One day hopefully we will be blessed with such a unique blend as Mike delivered.

So I finally saw whole Ali/Norton trilogy. I still like the second mos of them all. Third fight was a great brawl but I have to admit that Ken Norton fought very well. Even I would give him that fight. Actually he was beating Muhammad more in their third fight than in the first one. I was suprised that first fight was very even. The second was the best and not only because muhammad won that fair and square. I also watched First Riddick/Golota fight. To me it was also close fight and Golota was just a little better than Riddick in that fight. He was able to protect him self better. I think that was reason why Riddick Bowes prime was so short. He was eating blows almost every time he fought somebody. You can not do that.

I think it is clear to any Tyson-afficiando that taller opponents did cause him some trouble; but, that's expected with height-differences. Tyson still managed to win a good amount on points — much to many viewers' chagrin of lack of KO.

But, there is one problem I'm wary of — and I'm too lazy to nitpick further — but, bringing up Tyson's fight v. Ribalta and Klitschko's fight [KO10 v. KO2] is pretty egregious in comparison because Klitsch fought Jose in 1998 and Tyson fought him in 87, iirc; that's an 11-year difference. Am I to consider them the same opponents? Should I consider the Holmes Tyson fought the same Holmes that fought Ali?

That's only glaring error that caught my eye through the quick read-through.

And I think it should really be stressed how sluggish/fat Tyson was coming into the Douglas fight — and without Rooney [I think people seriously underestimate how important Rooney was to Tyson. Some trainers and fighters have *that* close of a relationship that one missing the other leads to major changes].

As fighters age, they "usually" lose their speed and athleticism. As fighters age, they "usually" gain weight and experience.

I don't know if the Ribalta Klitschko wasted was as good as the one Tyson fought and perhaps he did have different attributes, perhaps it was better for Klitschko or worse, I'm not checking.

The LArry Holmes that fought Tyson was DEFINITELY better than the LArry Holmes that fought Ali.

Mike Tyson would waste Ali within the first round pretty much beyond any doubt. MAybe 2 rounds like Alfonso Ratliff through running or maybe by holding on for grim death even longer, but the moment he tried to fight Tyson he'd be knocked out.

Larry Holmes I don't think could ever beat Tyson, but I think Larry could always put up a decent account of himself.

I just watched Tyson vs Douglas today in fact. Tyson was obviously affected by the replacement of Rooney and Givens etc. He was in turmoil at the time of course. But you cannot take anything away from Douglas either who got into the best shape of his career and motivated by his mothers death strongly, visibly produced the best performance of his career, reminiscent of a prime Riddick Bowe.

Even though Mike Tyson is my personal favourite, I'm not going to make excuses for his losses like many fans seem to do.

I can recognize Mike on so many personal levels it simply cannot be described – sure he's made some mistakes I never made and vice versa – and – NO, despite being a convicted rapist I do not believe he actually raped Desiree Washington.

When talking about Wlad VS Mike, I'd give Prime Mike a good chance against a lesser experienced Wlad, he could be able to get to Wlad in a similar fashion that Corrie Sanders did and KO Wlad.

However, with Mike being 5'10" and his 71" reach compared to late great Corrie's 6'4" and 77" reach he'd be more challenged to KO Wlad – that's also taking into consideration Mike's KO'ratio VS Corrie's KO'ratio (Mike has a better KO'ratio than Corrie) and the fact that I heartily believe Corrie Sanders would spank any version of Wlad.

Mike's main weaknesses were how easily he was tied up in clinches, pushed back in clinches and his inability to break out of clinches – many of his opponents would initiate them and break out of them at their own leisure – coupled by the fact that his endurance problems caught up with him in the later rounds when he actually faced real resistance (Buster Douglas, Holyfield)… The latter not being his own fault IMO. He had lung problems and was the explosive type of athlete.

I don't want to discredit or take away from his opponents who gave him trouble (the latter one KO'ed him) and otherwise went on with their business piling up bummy to mediocre records – Quick Tillis, Mitch Green, Jose Ribalta, James Smith and Buster Douglas – I believe all of those guys trained and fought Mike as if it were the fight of their lives… Even a bum or a mediocre fighter will have one good fight in him, and at the time Mike was the man to beat… 'nough said.

My prediction:

PRIME MIKE VS INEXPERIENCED WLAD : Wladimir never had a granite chin; his chin is fair but can't take Mike's best punch. At this stage Wlad's defensive skills are lacking – he's fairly easy to catch on the retreat… Mike shows solid chin before his endurance problems come into play…

MIKE WINS BY KO in the earlier rounds.

PRIME MIKE VS PRIME WLAD : Wladimir has now developed his style to keep opponents at bay and protect his fair/decent chin, Mike's height, reach and long-term endurance disadvantages will now become an obstacle for him VS Wlad.

Yeah I agree too. Height matters a lot. Even Holy used height to his advantage in fight against Mike. He also used few headbutts. I watched Mike vs. Ruddock I. Very good fight and performance by both guys. Both would be good boxers today. I believe in top 5 or top 10.
And I dont believe that Larry from Mike fight was better then from his fight with Muhammad. He was older and had 2 years lay off.

Man you suck! You take a long time to make a basic point and your facts are entirely opinion. The whole time Jack Dempsey was champ Gene Tunney was devising how to beat him, six years, so finally he puts it together and takes him down, does this mean Jack was overatted product of a hype-machine (don't answer you'll say yes). My point is that Mike was every bit as devastating as people took him to be at that time and no they couldn't figure out how to beat him. But you take Klitschko some fifteen years later and start to turn him into something, and he's got the career of a Mike Tyson to refer to (just like Tyson used to watch all the greats.) S0, yeah, 2007-8 Klitschko (post Immanuel Stuart) would give prime Mike a match. But if were talking about the fundamental drives that make a fighter Mike has it all above him. Fast, ferocious, powerful, mean skilled and desperate. I don't dislike Vlad by the way. But if you strip it down put the Mike in their that wants to win, whose dying to get at him those eight inches, and twenty pounds don't seem insurmountable. And the idea that Vlad would offhandedly bat him around in his prime is ridiculous, even if you're thinking of the 2002 Mike. And let's remember what happened to Dr. Octagon (sic) in 2003 from a hard punching journeyman, whose hallowed name I will not repeat.